Boston didn't tank? Well lets try good asset management. They sold the farm on almost everything to get 3 first round and 3 second picks in one year. Bye Lucy, bye Dougie. Only Debrusk has been great from 2015. Pasternak was 25th overall in 2014 and McAvoy was 14th in 2016.
Now we had a pretty good one in Sergechev, but thats another can of worms.
Its not tanking, its better scouting and managing your assets. Like selling petry would be this year. A litmus test I doubt we pass. Now some will argue we have poor scouting. 24 teams passed on pasternak. We picked Sergechev before McAvoy. Not that it matters because we went all in and then decided to trade a couple of aces for 2 new cards that happen to be a 3 of spades and an 8 of dunce.
Now that we have established that the bruins moved assets for more picks(ie TANK). Only 1 out of 3 of the 1st rounder panning out. Do we then move to the argument that MAYBE it might be our development. They have 3 solid 1st rounders out of 5 in 3 years. They picked in the middle but had 2 complete busts. Pasternak is an outlier like Gallagher(though gally a LOT more so) . So out of 4 draft picks in the 13-15 rang in 2 years the bruins had 2 good picks and 2 busts. But that is more of a rebuild than we have done and it was intentional unlike us finishing poorly AND winning the lotto to move up a slot, even if people forget we did.
Sorry this post is not very focused.
1 Bruins did tank and had 4 draft picks in the middle area in those 2 years (along with 3 seconds with those 3 firsts in 2015)
2 They had 2 work out and 2 bust
3 SO is it their drafting, or development. How does this relate to ours.
Even if you have good scouting, as one would have to assume because of pasternak at 25th and McAvoy at 14th. That means that they failed 5 times with Six top 52 picks and succeeded with One in the 2015 draft.
So how is a team with one of the worst development records(habs) in the last 7 years going to do better? Question needs to be asked, what was the previous requirement on scouting. We know Big Mac and Tinordi were priorities for MB. We have seen that that was some bad direction from our GM. But even if drafting improves we can see from the bruins that even with lots of picks you still don't have a sure bet.
We need to make sure we have the best position to draft this year and hopefully with enough draft picks to beat the odds. So a tank isn't a tank-its asset management and making sure you get the best bang for your picks. We need to do a properly rebuild, not a retool, not a reset. That means selling assets so we don't win as many games and adding as many picks as possible, not trading picks for the likes of TDL Ott King Martinsen and Benn(the jordie variety) for a first round drubbing. Even if we draft 8the its better than 18th. Maybe we still get that 18th or 29th from trading a petry, or we do this a few years ago when we should have instead of holding onto assets till they have no value while struggling to make the playoffs.
We know one thing, our speed is not going to work well for us in the playoffs. Small and fast (not highly skilled) and our poor special teams will make things even harder. We don't need to be huge but this team is not rugged enough to make a deep run, despite man mountain.
Do we really need to look at buffalo and toronto?
On the tanking or not tanking argument, I'm fine with either case. I don't oppose selling off assets to get more picks. But Boston didn't tank. And all they did was trade two players (Lucic and Hamilton). They kept Bergeron, Chara, Marchand, Krejci, and Rask. And they made those moves at the draft, not the trade deadline, where they could have used what was left of the season to improve their chances at a better pick. That tells me that they weren't even interested in tanking. They just made some moves to get more picks. Lucic, btw, had one year left on his deal. So they decided that he wasn't part of their new identity and moved him. And Lucic was already on the decline.
It was asset management. Credit to Sweeney on those moves. But let's remember, this was Sweeney's first move as a GM. He was hired a month before the draft. So it's easier for a new GM to come in and make these moves.
And yet, the next two seasons, they fought to make the playoffs. They missed them, but their aim was not to miss them. That isn't what I'm saying Montreal needs to do. What I'm saying is that management sees that as an example of a team who competes for a playoff spot and in the meantime, turned it around quickly.
Also, I don't know how much credit you can give their scouting staff for having Barzal, Boeser, and Chabot available to them with those three consecutive picks and all they could claim from those picks is DeBrusk.
As for drafting and developing, I think Montreal has put the right people in place. I'm not one who thinks Timmins is bad at scouting and drafting. But I think on the development area of the organization, steps were taken this past off-season that will bear fruit in the coming years. Habs prospects had to go from Lefebvre to Therrien. Now they have to go through Bouchard to Julien/Ducharme. I feel a lot more comfortable with that idea. Bouchard and Ducharme haven't proven anything at the pro level, but watching Laval games, you can see the difference already. Evans, Vejdemo, Fleury, and Alain are first year pros who are looking better as the season progresses. Even McCarron is in beast mode the last month and a half (injured now). Audette's playing the best hockey he's ever played since jumping in the pros. All this to say that Habs look to have addressed that area and there is more hope for these prospects than before.
And for what it's worth, I think the 2017 and 2018 drafts in particular will change the fortunes for the future of this franchise.
As for Pastrnak, Habs didn't miss out on him, though. He was selected right before they could make their pick.
And a correction on Tinordi, he wasn't an MB priority, as he was selected in 2010, two years before MB was GM.
Also on asset management, Bergevin has made his share of mistakes. But what he was able to get for Pacioretty despite the very public divorce is good asset management. He got a player for the present (Tatar), a player for the very near future (Suzuki), and a player for the longer view (draft pick). You can also say it was good asset management to trade for Armia, two draft picks, Steve Mason for only an AHL defenseman in Simon Bourque (who is now in U-Sports). And then using the available cap space to buy Mason out.